clock menu more-arrow no yes mobile

Filed under:

Un-Heisman Worthy Analysis

The Heisman Pundit has resolved his computer difficulties and resumed blogging. No word yet on his Heisman analysis, but he's laid out his Top 10 teams for the readers.  USC is at #1, Texas at #2. No problem there.

It gets a little weird, though, right after that. HP puts Penn State at #3, which is just fine by us. But the comment next to Penn State is befuddling.

Michael Robinson is putting up stats comparable to Vince Young and is just as important--if not more so--to his team. So why isn't he a Heisman candidate?

Before we begin, let me just say that I think Robinson is having a terrific season and is a dandy of a quarterback, if you'll let me get a little Keith Jackson on you.

But HP's claim that Robinson and Vince Young are comparable this year is mystifying. Let's break down the numbers.

Young: 155-244 (63.5% completion rate), 2414 yards, 22 TDs, 8 INTs, 169.8 rating / 117 rushes, 871 yards, 8 TDs

Robinson: 131-252 (51.9% completion rate), 1992 yards, 15 TDs, 9 INT, 130.9 rating / 133 rushes, 795 yards, 10 TDs

Is Heisman Pundit really confused as to why Robinson isn't getting any Heisman attention? It's clear as day to us. While the two have rushed the football comparably, VY is out-passing Robinson by a very healthy margin. Where VY ranks #2 in the nation in passing efficiency, Robinson ranks #49.  Folks, not only is Robinson not among the best passers in the nation, he's not even among the best in his own conference. Five other Big 10 quarterbacks have higher passer ratings than Robinson.

When you factor in Robinson's rushing, that improves his stock quite a bit, and vaults him over most of his Big 11 counterparts. But it doesn't put him in Vince Young territory.

Is this really a debate? If HP can't sort this one out, it makes you wonder whether his analysis on the other Heisman contenders deserves any attention.